The first time I ever spoke to JJ Abrams for any length of time, it was during the early days of pre-production on 2009's "Star Trek," and we spent as much of the phone call talking about "Star Wars" as we did anything else.

The comments he made to Hollywood Life certainly echo the sentiments he shared with me that afternoon. We talked about why he was tackling something as well-examined and iconic as "Star Trek," and he explained that when he was growing up, he was aware of "Trek" and enjoyed it in a passing sort of way, but that "Star Wars" was the thing that he couldn't get enough of, the thing that really turned him on to the potential of world-building. He felt like with "Trek," he had more room to play because he liked the iconography, but wasn't overly reverent towards it. He was able to see ways to twist things, to try new things with the characters, whereas he felt like "Star Wars" was something that he would be afraid to change or screw up at all.

In the same article, Jon Favreau sounds far more interested in the gig, and in some ways, Favreau is exactly what they need. I think Favreau has been edging towards this sort of giant canvass movie, and when he was attached to "John Carter of Mars," he had some huge ambitions for it. When he says "We'll see," I think it is crystal clear that he would take the call if it came.

Colin Trevorrow, on the other hand, sounds like he is being far more political in his answer, and it makes me wonder how much credibility there is to the rumor that he's one of the guys Lucasfilm has been talking to. It's an off-the-wall choice no matter what you thought of "Safety Not Guaranteed," his romantic comedy from this year's Sundance Film Festival. Trevorrow has the right attitude about how important the universe is to several generations of audiences now. It sounds like he must have had some part in the conversations so far, but who knows how close he is to the top of the list?

I expect that Lucasfilm will make many choices between now and the release of the film that will make people wonder what's going on or why they'd make those choices. I don't mind being surprised, because it sounds to me like they're trying to do this right, and like they've been working towards these announcements for a while now.

A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

What has Favreau done to make you think he could direct what will likely be the most anticipated movie ever? Iron Man 1, a film that works almost solely as a platform for an amazingly charismatic actor? Iron Man 2? Cowboys and Aliens? Elf, a Will Ferrell X-mas movie? Made? Zathura?

Tell me, which one of these movies makes you think Favs can handle the Star Wars movie people have been waiting for since 1983? Do people actually watch the movies Favreau directs? What does it tell you that Marvel gave Avengers to Joss Whedon? Look I've liked him ever since Swingers but he's the guy you go to when Peter Berg and McG ask for too much money. If Favs wants Star Wars give him the pilot of the live action series when they get around to it, the Revolution pilot was pretty good for what it was.

J.J. LensFlares? Meh, he loved ET too and made Super 8, I'm glad he would take a pass. Star Trek was a fun afternoon but I've never given it another thought. I'll see the sequel but if they weren't making it or were rebooting again I wouldn't care at all based on his movie.

For the Ep. 7? I go with Frank Darabont and have him executive produce the other two. He's has practical effects work experience, great with actors, B-movie cred (Star Wars is a glorified B movie) he's worked on a Episode 1 script and an Indy 4 script that Lucas rejected which is as good an endorsement I can think of after watching Phantom Menace and Crystal Skull.

Or Fincher. There is nothing David Fincher can't do better than 99.9 percent of everyone else.

To clarify, Darabont never wrote a word of "Star Wars." Lucasfilm is not a WGAw signatory company, and they couldn't make a waiver deal with Darabont to hire him. So he did not work on any draft of "Episode I."

And there's more of his "Indy 4" draft in the final film than you think.

To clarify, Darabont never wrote a word of "Star Wars." Lucasfilm is not a WGAw signatory company, and they couldn't make a waiver deal with Darabont to hire him. So he did not work on any draft of "Episode I."

And there's more of his "Indy 4" draft in the final film than you think.

Thanks for your reply Fistosalmon. I think Favreau would make a good director for the same reasons you don't.

I think Zarutha, Iron Man, Elf and even the maligned Cowboys and Aliens all show a passion for the art of film making (Favreau's the use of more time-consuming practical effects as well as CGI in Zarutha is an example).

In fact, I think his only real misstep is IM2, where he seemed to be trying to serve too many masters. But even that film has some great set pieces.

Give him a good script, remind him to have some fun and I think he could give us a great Star Wars film.

You're right Drew, Darabont didn't actually write a script for Ep. 1, but he is on record as having read and gave Lucas some notes on Phantom Menace and was considered as the screenwriter. I re-read what I wrote and it sounds like I was saying he had a rejected Star Wars script, I should have been clearer that I meant the Indy script was rejected. I remember your AICN blurb about it so I know you've read it. I haven't so I'll take your word for it although I'm willing to bet my life he didn't have Shia Lebouf swinging with monkeys and if the fridge was in his script it was because Lucas had it in his treatment as part of the first set piece. That said I still think he'd be great for it and Favreau would chunk it. Thanks for the clarification.

Goodhorse thanks for your reply to my reply. If you like Fav's movies I can't really argue except to say while I understand your point about passion for the process being important I think that's probably the best thing you can say about his talents as a director and frankly I don't think that's enough for Star Wars. I suppose we'll have to chalk this one up to the old "agree to disagree".

All I can say is that I've been thinking about the movie that takes place after Jedi since I was 13. I actually liked the prequels but even so it wasn't the same. And the Thrawn books always felt like a mildly interesting intellectual exercise at best. Some of the names being bandied about like Abrams, Favreau, Del Toro and Whedon (I know he's not doing it but still) literally fill me with dread. If they aren't going to go with a Fincher or Zemeckis level director I'd rather they pulled in Gareth Edwards, that guy got way more into Monsters than he had any right to, similar to Lucas with New Hope.

Fistosalmon, you make some good points, but I think some of your thoughts are a bit off ... although, honestly, it's all about personal opinion. The Majestic? Okay at best. The Mist? Mostly terrible. "There's something in the mist!!!!" is a to-go line when my wife and I want to parody something scary. The Walking Dead's first season? Sub-par, and things got better once he left (for the most part ... still not great).

It's odd to me that you list all of Favreau's stuff as a way to ask what he's done that makes him a good choice for Star Wars, but then mention Frank Darabont as a great choice. Between the two, Favreau has at least done more genre stuff as a director. Zathura was far better than it should have been, even for a kid's movie. And Iron Man did something that was unexpected ... it brought that character into the maintstream when MANY non-geeks knew almost nothing about him. Darabont, on the other hand ... well, just look at his history. With each film he's directed, his quality has gone down. He hit his peak with Shawshank, but since then, what has he done to show that he could handle Star Wars? There's simply nothing in the past 15 years of Darabont's resume that REALLY stands out. He's been okay, but nothing great, really. I'm not saying Favreau would be GREAT, but he's proven himself more than Darabont in the past decade. By far.

And while we're at it, what has McG done? Charlie's Angels? Terminator Salvation? Isn't he the guy who, when someone asked him about doing a Batman vs. Superman movie, said something along the lines of "How could Batman ever have a chance against Superman?" Um ... yeah, that guy has zero "geek cred" if he can ask that question with even a modicum of sincerity. And I'd say the same thing about Zemeckis. I used to love that guy, but he's strayed. Maybe he can come back into the fold of non-motion captured actors again. Yes, I know he's going to have a new live-action movie out soon. But same argument there. He hasn't show much ingenuity in several years.

My money is on Brad Bird. He has a great visual sense, an eye for story, and is already a Disney guy. He's one of the most obvious choices, and I bet his agent is tingling with excitement.

I do think Fincher would be a solid choice. Now that he's gotten away from his CGI movement through corridors and buildings (see Fight Club, Panic Room, etc.)

BTW, I didn't get your comment about Whedon. I don't want him doing Star Wars either, and I love the guy. But what did you mean when you said, "What does it tell you that Marvel gave Avengers to Joss Whedon?" It tells me that they had a lot of confidence in a guy who has an amazing critical track record. But still not sure what you meant in the context of your full statement.

@zeroed out. You're absolutely right, it is a lot about personal tastes. Let me clarify a few things:

Whedon. I'm not a hater but I'm also not a worshiper. I feel his talents are better suited to television where he has more time to devote to character and visuals are less important, I don't think composition is one of his strong suits. The point I was making about him in relation to him vs Favreau on Avengers was that Marvel had two good looks at Favs with IM1 and 2 and for Avengers, a bigger and higher stakes movie, went with a less experienced film director that was better developing scripts. Marvel seems to like saving money but it's still not a vote of confidence to pick a guy with one theatrical release under his belt that underperformed (I'm not getting into Serenity, bottom line it wasn't a hit) over the guy that did your last two movies. And RDJ hasn't been complaining about Whedon or Shane Black for IM3 and the studio seems very intent on keeping him happy.

Darabont: I really liked The Mist. Again it's largely about preference but it was a low budgeted movie that used a lot of practical effects to augment the digital effects. He got really good performances that filled out archetypical roles beyond what they were written to on the page which was a conscious decision he made when writing the script. One of the things that put a lot of fans off the prequels was the overuse of digital effects and the dead performances of some of the actors in thinly written roles. The Mist demonstrates (to me at least) Darabont's interest and ability to push what you can get out of B material and budget to it's limits. The ending, which was different than the novella's, was ballsy as hell and felt Empire-ish in a WTF?!?!?! way. And if nothing else Darabont directing gives us a least a tiny chance of seeing Sam Witwer with a lightsaber.

The Majestic? Frankly I think I watched it on a couch with some girl years ago and I can't remember a thing about it. But I'd say Green Mile was very good and I think those are the only four movies he's done. As I see it that's one classic, one very good, one really fun low budget B horror movie and one I can't remember. That stacks up pretty good against Favreau.

As for the Walking Dead, again opinions vary, I thought the first season was almost universally excellent and was clearly enough to get a show about zombies a second longer season on the same network that shows Mad Men. I'd call that strong. The second season I liked less but he got canned for reasons that could have been anything but seem like it was a lot about budgetary/money issues so I don't really weight it heavily. Too soon to say about LA Noir but he worked on Young Indiana Jones which, it's been awhile, but I remember being amazed at how "Indy" it felt and really liking it a lot. Frankly I consider the television producing to be a real plus for Darabont, Star Wars should be treated more like an episodic story as opposed to the more stand-alone or ret-conned way most sequels are made.

Zemeckis: True he hasn't done live action in awhile. Go see Flight right now. It's amazing, if anything the time away from live action made it better. I wasn't a fan of any of his Mo-Cap stuff and wondered what the hell he was doing it for but I gotta think it'd help making a Star Wars movie, digital effects-wise I don't know if there's another filmaker better at seamlessly integrating the live-action and digital worlds. He's made his iconic series in Back To The Future so I think he could tackle another iconic property without being overly reverential. And he has experience producing episodic content on television with Tales From The Crypt. He'd be a pretty good fit with Star Wars, I just wonder if he'd want to do it, I would give a lot more weight to his interest in developing original material than I would to JJ Abrams.

McG: I don't think he's done anything particularly of note besides make a couple studios a lot of money. We Are Marshall was good. My point wasn't that McG was a talented director that should be considered for Episode 7 or had any particular geek cred. My point was that he's a hack director that studios trust to handle big budgeted heavily marketed brainless crap that opens big in the US and sells well in overseas markets and THAT is the peer group Favreau belongs in, only slightly below him and Peter Berg. Although after Battleship and This Means War Favreau might have moved up to their level. Btw personally I give almost no consideration to so called "geek-cred", it's really just to whip up the fanbase and isn't a replacement for talent. Overall I'd guess it's as likely to have a detrimental effect on the finished film as a positive one.

Fincher: No one can disuade me from my opinion that Fincher is the best living director we have. Zodiac was a masterpiece, he actually invested the audience in Mark Zuckerburg and made a really good movie out of a pulpy derivative novel that was basically an exercise in literary wish fulfillment. The last of which would be really good skill to bring to a new Star Wars movie.

Brad Bird: I loved The Incredibles, liked Iron Giant and didn't care for Ratatoullie. It was well done, the story just didn't appeal to me on some level and Patton Oswalt's voice just rubs me the wrong way. I thought he made as good a Mission Impossible movie as you can make at this point in the Tom Cruise movie style that series is in and I'd call it the best of the four. But it's one live action movie with a star/producer that comes across to me at least as one of the most involved guys doing that sort of thing. I just feel like I need to see one really strong big budget movie out of him first and it doesn't seem like that could happen time wise. If whichever numbered year movie he's doing turns out really good it'd clear up any misgivings I have about him doing 8 or 9.

As an aside I'd really like to see Tom Cruise direct something (non Star Wars) to see how it came out, he certainly seems to have a strong vision and he'd almost have to know how to do it by now. So there you go Zeroed Out, that's what I got. I don't expect to change your mind about Darabont but hopefully that gave you a little more into my thinking on it. And the Whedon thing.

I've been trying to make sure to do that. Sometimes I'm just so focused on writing the next piece that I forget to check back. I want people to feel like this is a conversation, though, so I'll continue to work to engage everyone, not just the trolls.

I think Joe Johnston would be great. Rocketeer and Captain America are great movies in a similar heroic vein to Star Wars, and I personally think he turned Jurassic Park in the right directions when making JP3. Couple that with his innate understanding of visual effects and his direct history with Star Wars itself, he's an ideal choice.

Considering the choice of directors Lucas made for Empire and Jedi, it seems possible to me that whoever gets hired for Episode VII may be less a big name, well-known director than a journeyman who can deliver what the producers demand, who doesn't mind not being the visionary. Maybe someone with some TV background.

I gotta admit, I'm going to be just a little bit sad once a director's announced and the speculating ends. Right now, anything's possible, and I feel like a kid in a candy shop.

We could do worse than Favreau, for sure. But he's kind of like Andrew Stanton to me. Iron Man was solid, but Cowboys and Aliens tanked (though not as bad as John Carter, I guess). With Arndt writing, though - I suspect either one of 'em could work out well. Something about Trevorrow is really intriguing, but he isn't one of those big names Disney seems intent on pursuing.

Out of curiosity, is Gore Verbinski's name being floated around at all? I know the jury's still out on Lone Ranger, but PotC was so wildly successful for Disney and had close to the right tone SW needs.

I would've loved to see a JJ Abrams SW, but he'll probably never do it, not only because of his attachment to the material, but because he's doing another space opera.

And Guillermo Del Toro would be incredible and visionary (although he's said he hasn't been formally approached). He's probably not quite what Disney's looking for to rebrand SW, but wow - he would rebrand it, wouldn't he?

Brad Bird is the guy for me. It is a shame he is roped into 1952, the next turd from the mind of Damon Lindelof. I think Bird would kill Star Wars if given the opportunity.

I don't want Abrams anywhere near Star Wars. He is a competent director, but his sensibilities are all wrong. And as another poster on here mentioned, JJ loved ET but went out and made Super 8, a movie that did not in any way capture the spirit of ET.

The last guy I don't even know nor have I seen the film he made. But I doubt Lucas would go with an unknown to direct. Unless he wants someone who will be easily pliable. But in that case, why doesn't Lucas direct the damn thing himself.

I would be happier than ever if this is all misdirection on Lucasfilm's part and they already have Bird to direct. But I kind of doubt it right now.

I disagree about Super 8. It most certainly did capture the spirit of ET in one important respect: it captured the feeling of that era, and the focus on real characters in unreal circumstances. I think the alien stuff missed the mark a bit but as for tone, JJ nailed it.

A lot of people seem to think this would be a good fit for a director that has done good things with some material and would be great for this. But it's Star Wars Episode VII, I want someone who has already gotten all of it out of a movie, effects, story, performance, tone, everything. Sure that's a short list but so what?

Goodhorse I think people that felt burned by Lost could see Lindelof's hands all over the parts of Prometheus that they hated and feel like he's all smoke (monsters) and mirrors and are just done. Kinda why I want to see a lot of these prospective directors a long way from Ep. 7, nothing is going to hit expectations but I don't want another Prometheus experience where the bones of what you wanted were there but someone took a big chunk of the meat away trying to be cute. Lindelof is like the stoner that asks a big philosophical question, gets halfway to an answer and then loses interest as his high wears off.

Someone mentioned the Pirates guy, I could see Disney going for that but man those movies felt soulless to me, particularly the second two. I liked Rango a lot so maybe we'll see something with this Lone Ranger movie (although I can't think of a movie with a budget that big that I'de mentally slated for a rental this early) but that's not even done yet, in the end I think it's going to be someone who's developing something or just had something fall through. If some name director drops out of a high profile gig in the next month that might end up being the guy. Ugh, just as I was typing that Mathew Vaughn popped in my head.